Guide to making claims based on research
Replies
-
Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »I don't think that books are a particularly reliable source of evidence. Usually they're written by someone with a particular hypothesis or stance. They may cite plenty of scientific studies, but they will be studies that support their hypothesis, and not those that don't. It gives the reader the false impression that it's the truth, when in fact it's not really a balanced presentation of the evidence.
Academic books may be different, but unless they're current, they are quickly outdated.
Books that are basically edited by someone and are a collection of many articles are more common, especially from a money standpoint, and I'd say are worth checking out/using as a reference.Since this allows you to read many articles in one spot.
But one large book by one researcher can be just fine, assuming that you can tell it's ot biased research. usually if funding comes from a specific organization then I would call it into question. E.g. if research is paid for by like... "National Anti-Sugar Corporation" and the study of course finds evidence that sugar is bad, I'd look for other sources unrelated to this article/book.
Academic titles are quite different to the books I'm talking about. For example Eat to Live, Grain Brain, the Primal Blueprint etc...lol
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
Or maybe you see something different from this link than I do? Can someone click it and tell me if you see the terms I listed above on page 1 of the results set, no need to even click a result, the term is in the title or first sentence of the abstract?
So I see a full page of links. Is there any one in particular that supports the health benefits you've stated? Because we could think it's one link/study, start responding based on that and you could come back saying no that's not really it.
The first link detailed an ADF study and concluded that since there was compliance and the participants lost weight, it was a good option for weight loss and therefore improvement in cardiovascular health etc. That's not bad, I don't think. I just assumed the point you were making was that it somehow provided greater benefits than a standard calorie restriction protocol. If that's not what you meant I could spend a bit too much time fruitlessly digging through dozens of links to find a point you haven't made.
The simple request here is either for a direct link to the study that you feel best makes your point, or a copy and paste of a paragraph or two that does the same
0 -
Thank you so much! Love this, OP! And JUDDD = Johnson Up Day Down Day Diet.0
-
WalkingAlong wrote: »
Or maybe you see something different from this link than I do? Can someone click it and tell me if you see the terms I listed above on page 1 of the results set, no need to even click a result, the term is in the title or first sentence of the abstract?
So I see a full page of links. Is there any one in particular that supports the health benefits you've stated? Because we could think it's one link/study, start responding based on that and you could come back saying no that's not really it.
The first link detailed an ADF study and concluded that since there was compliance and the participants lost weight, it was a good option for weight loss and therefore improvement in cardiovascular health etc. That's not bad, I don't think. I just assumed the point you were making was that it somehow provided greater benefits than a standard calorie restriction protocol. If that's not what you meant I could spend a bit too much time fruitlessly digging through dozens of links to find a point you haven't made.
The simple request here is either for a direct link to the study that you feel best makes your point, or a copy and paste of a paragraph or two that does the same
This exactly.
Your claim was:There are also valid health reasons for choosing it over a stable daily deficit. Studies have found it preserves more lean mass than daily dieting and leads to improvements in overall health. There is evidence that it can help prevent diabetes, dementia, cardiovascular disease and cancer.
And your wall of links:
Short-term modified alternate-day fasting: a novel dietary strategy for weight loss and cardioprotection in obese adults
Conclusion: These findings suggest that ADF is a viable diet option to help obese individuals lose weight and decrease CAD risk. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as UIC-004-2009.
No advantage over regular caloric restriction here.
Effects of modified alternate-day fasting regimens on adipocyte size, triglyceride metabolism, and plasma adiponectin levels in mice
Rodent studies rarely translate to humans. They are useful insofar as they are hypothesis-generating, nothing more.
Dietary and physical activity adaptations to alternate day modified fasting: implications
for optimal weight loss
No advantage over regular caloric restriction.
Improvements in LDL particle size and distribution by short-term alternate day modified fasting in obese adults
No advantage over regular caloric restriction.
Modified alternate-day fasting regimens reduce cell proliferation rates to a similar extent as daily calorie restriction in mice
Rodent study, and no advantage over caloric restriction.
Dose effects of modified alternate-day fasting regimens on in vivo cell proliferation and plasma insulin-like growth factor-1 in mice
Rodent study, and the ONLY group that showed a statistically significant advantage over controls was the ADF 100% group (the mice that ate nothing at all on the fast days), quite different than the protocols advocated in the aforementioned diets.
Modified alternate-day fasting and cardioprotection: relation to adipose tissue dynamics and dietary fat intake
Rodent study.
Improvements in body fat distribution and circulating adiponectin by alternate-day fasting versus calorie restriction
No benefit over regular caloric restriction.
Improvements in Coronary Heart Disease Risk Indicators by Alternate-Day Fasting Involve Adipose Tissue Modulations
Only looked at ADF, no comparison to CR
Do calorie restriction or alternate-day fasting regimens modulate adipose tissue physiology in a way that reduces chronic disease risk?
The abstract doesn't even mention the results. Full text is behind a paywall.
So NONE of the studies support your claims.
0 -
I would like to point out that sometimes...just sometimes, people are actually legitimately interested in looking at the evidence of assertions for bettering their knowledge and to have a conversation about it, and not to try to do an 'aha...gotcha' move. The vast majority of people on here are not 'in the business' so to speak and even if they were, there are just so many topics to look at within the fitness and nutrition field that specialization is required.
Using one of the examples noted here of IF. Not recently, but on numerous threads quite a while ago, I have asked people to provide evidence to support their assertions re health benefits of JUDDD v 'standard' caloric restriction, as at the time, all the studies that I had seen had compared a caloric restriction by way of JUDDD to a diet that was at maintenance. This was not to 'show' or 'prove' anything - I was genuinely interested to see if there were studies that indicated that a caloric restriction via JUDDD may confer health benefits over and above a 'standard' caloric restriction. I never got any citations or links. [Note: this may have changed with new studies as I have not looked into it in probably over a year now].
True that. Just like when LOTS of people share their similar anecdotal experiences, it makes me more willing to look into whatever they are talking about if it pertains to my own needs/desires. So if someone posts an interesting claim and then posts good references about it, then I'd be way more likely to take this claim seriously and possibly implement it into my own weight loss/etc lifestyle.
Btw, what's JUDDD mean?
Its a name for an Alternate Day Diet, like 5:2 (stands for Johnson's Up Day Down Day Diet).
0 -
Anyone with actual interest may read the books. I'm not falling into the "post your links in this format so we can dissect them and claim to have proved you wrong".
For about the sixth time, all this is over this simple exchange:
Q: "Why would anyone subject themselves to IF?"
Response: "For reasons a, b, c and some might because of studies that have found evidence it may help prevent x, y and z."
The misinterpretation is amazing. If you want the studies, read the books. If you want to claim no such studies exist (why, I don't know), do so. I'm done playing semantics games.1 -
In. With the comment that citation is often more effective as a corpus rather than single articles. But mostly just in.0
-
WalkingAlong wrote: »Anyone with actual interest may read the books. I'm not falling into the "post your links in this format so we can dissect them and claim to have proved you wrong".
For about the sixth time, all this is over this simple exchange:
Q: "Why would anyone subject themselves to IF?"
Response: "For reasons a, b, c and some might because of studies that have found evidence it may help prevent x, y and z."
The misinterpretation is amazing. If you want the studies, read the books. If you want to claim no such studies exist (why, I don't know), do so. I'm done playing semantics games.
Nonsense. YOU made the claim that the studies exist, but didn't actually read them. If you're going to claim "studies have found x" you should be prepared to post said studies.
As an academic, you should understand this.
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »Anyone with actual interest may read the books. I'm not falling into the "post your links in this format so we can dissect them and claim to have proved you wrong".
For about the sixth time, all this is over this simple exchange:
Q: "Why would anyone subject themselves to IF?"
Response: "For reasons a, b, c and some might because of studies that have found evidence it may help prevent x, y and z."
The misinterpretation is amazing. If you want the studies, read the books. If you want to claim no such studies exist (why, I don't know), do so. I'm done playing semantics games.
Or "hey, can you post the sources of your claim so we can just see if there is actual proper evidence in humans for the phenomenon you are claiming exists?" and if it DOES exist, then we will all be like "oh cool, I wonder how many other authors have been able to replicate or come to similar findings"
You're basically continuing to do the runaround. Even in the other thread other people went about posting links (studies or not) that I believe were in support of your claims, which Ive yet to take a look into. So, they could do it and you, a professor, could not?
Also, where is the misinterpretation? You made a claim (yes, you saying that there is research/evidence for something IS you making a claim, just like when I write a paper about findings in a study I am making a claim) about how IF specifically can help wtih dementia, cancer, diabetes, etc. But have not yet posted even just one article that demonstrates it, or that has is specifically found in humans because you seem to be making generalizations to humans.0 -
-
herrspoons wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »You have WAY too much time on your hands.
Has over 2,000 posts. Criticises others for having too much time.
There's a difference between taking the time to reply to threads that typically only require a few sentences versus taking the time to create a thread that is extremely lengthy (and certainly took more than a couple minutes to type) and most won't even bother to read because they don't know what peer-reviewed studies are or how to access them.0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
You're right, I confused you with someone else who doesn't understand the process. But you've posted plenty that shows you have a tenuous grasp on it but feel like an expert. In today's other thread you said that "the credentials of the author don't even matter," for example.And as far as the Aragon, Schoenfel et al comment above, the only post that I could find that has been made within the last week and that involved research by these people is a thread about fasted cardio, which I did not even participate in.
So... huh?
community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10023219/yet-another-study-debunking-fasted-cardio/p1
:huh: Dr. Oz has fantastic credentials.
0 -
FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »You have WAY too much time on your hands.
Has over 2,000 posts. Criticises others for having too much time.
There's a difference between taking the time to reply to threads that typically only require a few sentences versus taking the time to create a thread that is extremely lengthy (and certainly took more than a couple minutes to type) and most won't even bother to read because they don't know what peer-reviewed studies are or how to access them.
There is.
The latter actually contributes to a meaningful conversation for those that are interested in science.
The former does not.
0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »You have WAY too much time on your hands.
Has over 2,000 posts. Criticises others for having too much time.
There's a difference between taking the time to reply to threads that typically only require a few sentences versus taking the time to create a thread that is extremely lengthy (and certainly took more than a couple minutes to type) and most won't even bother to read because they don't know what peer-reviewed studies are or how to access them.
There is.
The latter actually contributes to a meaningful conversation for those that are interested in science.
The former does not.
Too bad the majority here do not care. Most are here seeking advice about TDEE, food scales, why they are gaining weight when they are eating 1200 cals, what HRM to buy, food recipes, etc., which is certainly more meaningful to the majority than this thread will ever be.0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »Anyone with actual interest may read the books. I'm not falling into the "post your links in this format so we can dissect them and claim to have proved you wrong".
For about the sixth time, all this is over this simple exchange:
Q: "Why would anyone subject themselves to IF?"
Response: "For reasons a, b, c and some might because of studies that have found evidence it may help prevent x, y and z."
The misinterpretation is amazing. If you want the studies, read the books. If you want to claim no such studies exist (why, I don't know), do so. I'm done playing semantics games.
That's cool. Providing the links when asked was optional. We're just letting you know that the format in which you presented them was non-specific and could have stood to be a bit more useful. If I wasn't willing to dig through a dozen links to find potentially non-existent proof, why do you think I would read a book? As it stands the proof / details of your studies will just have to be one of the billion things I'll never know. *shrugs*
0 -
Maybe I missed this along the course of the thread - I only skimmed pages 2-6..
But I loved the original post. I would maybe add something about the Hierarchy of Evidence Strength.
As an example: Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analyses of RCTs >>> Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) >>> Observational Research0 -
FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »You have WAY too much time on your hands.
Has over 2,000 posts. Criticises others for having too much time.
There's a difference between taking the time to reply to threads that typically only require a few sentences versus taking the time to create a thread that is extremely lengthy (and certainly took more than a couple minutes to type) and most won't even bother to read because they don't know what peer-reviewed studies are or how to access them.
There is.
The latter actually contributes to a meaningful conversation for those that are interested in science.
The former does not.
Too bad the majority here do not care. Most are here seeking advice about TDEE, food scales, why they are gaining weight when they are eating 1200 cals, what HRM to buy, food recipes, etc., which is certainly more meaningful to the majority than this thread will ever be.
They may not, but many do.
Its also good to be able to give them good advice that can be substantiated.
0 -
FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »You have WAY too much time on your hands.
Has over 2,000 posts. Criticises others for having too much time.
There's a difference between taking the time to reply to threads that typically only require a few sentences versus taking the time to create a thread that is extremely lengthy (and certainly took more than a couple minutes to type) and most won't even bother to read because they don't know what peer-reviewed studies are or how to access them.
I often bother to take the time to respond with more than a few sentences on the questions that you assert most people are here for.
Apparently, I have too much time on my hands and taking time to try to get facts right and to use that to help others is a bad thing. Good to know.
0 -
I'm going to guess that this is already in the responses posted, but I don't have time to read the pages and pages, so...
Please be aware of any inherent bias that may be held by the author of any article. It can drive hypothesis, research and findings in very subtle ways that are difficult to recognize. Researchers' intent is to not let bias color findings and to structure studies to lower any effect of bias as much as possible, but it still creeps in.
True story: For an assignment in a class as simple as Intro to Speech years ago, one of my students wanted to use Dodge.com as an unbiased source for "Why Dodge Trucks are the Best." As a grad student working on some pretty in-depth social experiments on persuasive strategies in healthcare, all I could think was FML.0 -
Um, what?? I have drank water and I haven't died.
Also, correlation can imply causation, especially if there are multiple studies showing correlation. It doesn't prove causation, but it certainly may imply it.0 -
My Cats breath smells like cat food.....0
-
0 -
xmichaelyx wrote: »
Which I apparently lack
community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/30409651/#Comment_30409651
0 -
redfisher1974 wrote: »My Cats breath smells like cat food.....
I'll need peer reviewed studies posted here not only as links but also you must post the titles, abstracts and the authors' credentials. In MLA format. With human studies. On entire populations. Within the past six months.
It's been 5 minutes and I see no links. Therefore I have disproved your claim that all cats ever to have lived have cat food breath based on your N=1 anecdote. Which of course you never claimed, but it could be assumed that's what you believe because why else would you have posted such a claim.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Um, what?? I have drank water and I haven't died.
Also, correlation can imply causation, especially if there are multiple studies showing correlation. It doesn't prove causation, but it certainly may imply it.
With the exception of still born babies and those that die before water is given (actually, a lot of babies will die before ever drinking water since you don't have to supplement with water until they start transitioning to solid foods), everyone who has died has had water in their lifetime. They are trying to express a point of correlation not causation, which you have confirmed. Water does not cause most of the deaths.
0 -
You're right, this is a discussion forum. However, if we do reference studies or evidence of something, because they are outside of our personal experience, then we need to post links to those studies. That's what keeps the discussion on track.WalkingAlong wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »
Which I apparently lack
community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/30409651/#Comment_30409651
I teach it at a college. Based on your comments in that thread and others, you could stand a course in it, I'm sorry. Your tips above aren't bad but this is a forum for discussion, not a PhD defense. When someone posts that they've read studies that say X, they don't need to supply those links or be considered proven wrong. Some of us read a lot.
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »redfisher1974 wrote: »My Cats breath smells like cat food.....
I'll need peer reviewed studies posted here not only as links but also you must post the titles, abstracts and the authors' credentials. In MLA format. With human studies. On entire populations. Within the past six months.
It's been 5 minutes and I see no links. Therefore I have disproved your claim that all cats ever to have lived have cat food breath based on your N=1 anecdote. Which of course you never claimed, but it could be assumed that's what you believe because why else would you have posted such a claim.
I like you!
0 -
Yeah i'm sooooo sick of b******g about referenced studies...OMG some peoeple think they KNOW EVERYTHING because they are in thier early 20's in Uni...
i have to say LIFE brings much better evidence than reading research studies!0 -
double post0
-
LOL, I really fail to see what's so hard about this. If you want to participate in a scientific discussion about a topic, be prepared to defend your stance.
If you don't want to have to defend your stance leave it as a general statement and admit you don't have the time/energy/knowledge/background to get in to the nitty gritty detail.
Whining because some one took your science and countered it..... um that's kind of what's done. ALL. THE. TIME.
Doesn't matter if it's published in a peer reviewed journal. The data set a can still be too small, there can be issues with methodology that are lacking, people might question the statistics or the authors interpretation of the statistics, any number of possible things there to critique. Which *newsflash* that's what a professional scientist is trained to do.
There are many professional scientists on these forums, we enjoy these discussions, and yes we expect that if you want to really get in to a scientific debate on the subject you be able to discuss and reference in a reasonable manner.
Or you can take your ball and go home. Up to you.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions